Lucky LaRue:Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

bigfatbuddhist:Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

Well, peer reviewed analysis didn't get them off their butts...

Like most Republicans, it's only when it directly affects them that there's any chance for change. Typically, that ends up in demands for handouts from the Fed though. If an actual change in thought occurs, the empathy/sympathy will be narrowly defined to their exact circumstances.

Summoner101:bigfatbuddhist: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

Well, peer reviewed analysis didn't get them off their butts...

Like most Republicans, it's only when it directly affects them that there's any chance for change. Typically, that ends up in demands for handouts from the Fed though. If an actual change in thought occurs, the empathy/sympathy will be narrowly defined to their exact circumstances.

Now even some conservatives in the insurance industry are starting to come around to climate change. Must be messing with their bottom line or something.

Gubbo:Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

It was absurd last night- the wunderground hurricane blog discussion was completely overrun with these idiots, all spouting their Fox News approved talking points just like Lucky Lamoron above.

They all sound so authoritative if you know nothing about the science, and they are so deep into the Dunning Kruger hole they have no idea how stupid they sound to the weather nerds on that forum.

And yes, Lucky, we all understand the difference between weather and climate. Perhaps you'd like to discuss ocean heat content over time and the effect of rising sea temperatures on tropical storm formation?

Lucky LaRue:Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

UNC_Samurai:Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

I'm sure he's just really concerned about Mexico City getting hit by this hurricane.

UNC_Samurai:Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

I'm sure he's just really concerned about Mexico City getting hit by this hurricane.

Oh I know he's full of shiat. But it's a clever line to use given that smart people look at the things like climate and not weather.

And I wouldn't want someone who is unsure of things to be swayed by his nonsense.

Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources that remotely have the capacity to support the current world population are nuclear fission and fusion power. There seems to be small factions in the governments of all the developed countries that are providing enough information to keep the funding and progress going, and the future is fusion power with nuclear, hydroelectric, solar of several types, and wind power as players, and we are headed there but that's not where the clickbait is, and it doesn't have a partisan ring to it.

The most ironic thing is, Republicans came up with the term "climate change". They were trying to downplay the more disturbing term "global warming" and started using a less emotional phrase. When global temperatures started to lower for a few years, Democrats quickly switched to the Republican term. Now that the temperature is going back up, everyone is cool with just calling it climate change.

sardonicobserver:The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources that remotely have the capacity to support the current world population are nuclear fission and fusion power. There seems to be small factions in the governments of all the developed countries that are providing enough information to keep the funding and progress going, and the future is fusion power with nuclear, hydroelectric, solar of several types, and wind power as players, and we are headed there but that's not where the clickbait is, and it doesn't have a partisan ring to it.

bigfatbuddhist:sardonicobserver: The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources that remotely have the capacity to support the current world population are nuclear fission and fusion power. There seems to be small factions in the governments of all the developed countries that are providing enough information to keep the funding and progress going, and the future is fusion power with nuclear, hydroelectric, solar of several types, and wind power as players, and we are headed there but that's not where the clickbait is, and it doesn't have a partisan ring to it.

Gubbo:Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

sardonicobserver:Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

Sean VasDeferens:Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

Sean VasDeferens:Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

No worries. When the ocean is lapping at the gates of Mar-a-Lago whichever member of the Royal Family is on the throne will simply command the waters to recede.

Actually, as noted above, once enough companies start realizing they're losing money and Disney figures out resorts uninhabitable six months a year are unprofitable all of a sudden this will get a massive government program - probably paid for with cuts to Social Security and a national sales tax on baby formula.

Guybird:Sean VasDeferens: Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

We just went 12 years without a hurricane making landfall in the U.S.

[img.fark.net image 425x276]

Just for clarity's sake:https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usato​day.com/amp/598113001

Sean VasDeferens:UNC_Samurai: We just went 12 years without a hurricane making landfall in the U.S.

Ike, Irene, and Matthew would like to have a word with this pig-farking ignorance.

Get woke https://www.washingtonpost.com/n​ews/energy-environment/wp/2017/09/07/t​he-science-behind-the-u-s-s-strange-hu​rricane-drought-and-its-sudden-end/?no​redirect=on&utm_term=.c76f81dbcc9d

Since 2005, though, we've experienced no major U.S. landfalls until Harvey this year.

Hurricane Hermine: Sept. 2016, this Category 1 storm was the first hurricane to hit Florida since Hurricane Wilma in 2005.• Hurricane Arthur: July 2014, this storm whipped North Carolina's Outer Banks with winds of 100 mph, making it a Category 2.• Hurricane Sandy: Oct. 2012, Superstorm Sandy, the largest Atlantic system on record, slammed into New Jersey. It was the deadliest hurricane to hit the northeastern U.S. in 40 years and the second-costliest in the nation's history.Hurricane Isaac: Aug. 2012, this deadly Category 1 storm hit the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi right around the seventh anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.• Hurricane Irene: Sept. 2011, Irene hit North Carolina as a Category 1 storm. The storm caused major flooding in the northeast, and Irene's effects were felt along the entire Eastern seaboard.• Hurricane Ike: Sept. 2008, the last hurricane to strike Texas was Hurricane Ike, a powerful Category 2 storm that caused billions in damage and became the third most costly storm in the U.S., after Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina.• Hurricane Gustav: Sept. 2008, tens of thousands evacuated before this Category 2 storm hit the Louisiana coast, New Orlean's first major storm since Katrina.Hurricane Dolly: July 2008, Dolly made landfall in Texas as a Category 2 storm and gradually weakened to a tropical storm as it progressed.•Hurricane Humberto:Sept. 2007, although initially weak this record-breaking storm intensified rapidly before making landfall in Texas as a Category 1 storm.

Gubbo:grinnel: Hurricane frequency doesn't really seem to show a significant change in the past 150 years. We look to be having a similar pattern to that around 1886http://www.stormfax.com/huryear.htm

If you're going to talk nonsense, at least argue that we have more hurricanes now than previously because satellite technology picks up storms that would otherwise have been missed.

So, what you're saying is that there could have been far more hurricanes that we didn't know about, and not showing a significant increase in the number of hurricanes with the increase in technology, we could be on a hurricane decline?

Guybird:Sean VasDeferens: UNC_Samurai: We just went 12 years without a hurricane making landfall in the U.S.

Ike, Irene, and Matthew would like to have a word with this pig-farking ignorance.

Get woke https://www.washingtonpost.com/n​ews/energy-environment/wp/2017/09/07/t​he-science-behind-the-u-s-s-strange-hu​rricane-drought-and-its-sudden-end/?no​redirect=on&utm_term=.c76f81dbcc9d

Since 2005, though, we've experienced no major U.S. landfalls until Harvey this year.

Hurricane Hermine: Sept. 2016, this Category 1 storm was the first hurricane to hit Florida since Hurricane Wilma in 2005.• Hurricane Arthur: July 2014, this storm whipped North Carolina's Outer Banks with winds of 100 mph, making it a Category 2.• Hurricane Sandy: Oct. 2012, Superstorm Sandy, the largest Atlantic system on record, slammed into New Jersey. It was the deadliest hurricane to hit the northeastern U.S. in 40 years and the second-costliest in the nation's history.Hurricane Isaac: Aug. 2012, this deadly Category 1 storm hit the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi right around the seventh anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.• Hurricane Irene: Sept. 2011, Irene hit North Carolina as a Category 1 storm. The storm caused major flooding in the northeast, and Irene's effects were felt along the entire Eastern seaboard.• Hurricane Ike: Sept. 2008, the last hurricane to strike Texas was Hurricane Ike, a powerful Category 2 storm that caused billions in damage and became the third most costly storm in the U.S., after Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina.• Hurricane Gustav: Sept. 2008, tens of thousands evacuated before this Category 2 storm hit the Louisiana coast, New Orlean's first major storm since Katrina.Hurricane Dolly: July 2008, Dolly made landfall in Texas as a Category 2 storm and gradually weakened to a tropical storm as it progressed.•Hurricane Humberto:Sept. 2007, although initially weak this record-breaking storm intensified rapidly before making landfall in Texas as a Category 1 storm.

Gubbo:Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

grinnel:Gubbo: grinnel: Hurricane frequency doesn't really seem to show a significant change in the past 150 years. We look to be having a similar pattern to that around 1886http://www.stormfax.com/huryear.htm

If you're going to talk nonsense, at least argue that we have more hurricanes now than previously because satellite technology picks up storms that would otherwise have been missed.

So, what you're saying is that there could have been far more hurricanes that we didn't know about, and not showing a significant increase in the number of hurricanes with the increase in technology, we could be on a hurricane decline?

wearetheworld:Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.